Recent Comments

Answer Tips

Pinger

28 July 2012

While preparing input for the There still ain't no truth in Pravda post, I haven't paid any attention to the author of the Pravda article, one Igor Bukker (Игорь Буккер). Somehow the content seemed more interesting then. Now, after a few minutes of googling that name, I am not so sure. Interesting character that. At least, his views are. For example, here is what Mr Bukker thinks about Kim Philby, one of the most illustrious traitors in history:

People like Philby, when compared to Judas traitors (sic!), look if not as Christ, at least as his Apostles indeed. Philby could have been considered a traitor only if he, working for British intelligence, went over to the enemy. But it was the other way around in his case. Recruited first by Soviet intelligence, Philby infiltrated the British intelligence service. Following logic, Philby would have been a traitor only if he betrayed his oath to USSR and not the one to British crown.

Yup. "Following logic"... If you want to follow Mr Bukker's logic, a person owns loyalty not to his country but to the intelligence service that recruited him/her first. I am afraid to follow this kind of logic further. It may lead to Igor Bukker's state :

Well, at least now all is explained. Some people are just born to write for Pravda.

Oh well. What else? On one of many sites where Mr Bukker left his trace, a gentleman named Vasily left a short and unequivocal opinion of Mr Bukker's persona:

Игорь Буккер мудак

I wouldn't translate that last word, leaving it to you and Google to resolve. But I have to say that Vasily is right.